Or add games between the two teams with the record closest to you last year. That would be the Redskins and Lions for us. Since we had the worst record they would be home games for us. Every other team other than KC would have a home and away.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Or add games between the two teams with the record closest to you last year. That would be the Redskins and Lions for us. Since we had the worst record they would be home games for us. Every other team other than KC would have a home and away.

Sounds simple enough...but, trust me, as a scheduler for a 16-team soccer league, it doesn’t work out the way you’d think it would.

Labeling teams starting with “A” as the strongest team, the thought is that team “D” would play teams “C” and “E”...team “E” would play teams “D” and “F”...and so on. But the problem is that each “end” of the list of teams gets screwed up.

For instance, who would team “A” (Kansas City) play? Obviously teams “B” and “C”, right? Those are the second and third best teams. Team “B” would play teams “A” and “C”. But that leaves team “C” to face teams “A” and “B”, and not “B” and “D”. With “A”, “B”, and “C” already having their two games set, “D” would face teams “E” and “F”, not teams “C” and “E”...and the screwed up pattern continues..,

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

And, as you know, there are already screams/laments from Euro footy teams of “competitive disadvantage” because of erratic training schedule issues and team roster subtraction from sick or refusing to participate players.

One could envision multiple complaints along those lines—as in the delay of team practices impacting the 49ers (above).

Share on other sites

Sounds simple enough...but, trust me, as a scheduler for a 16-team soccer league, it doesn’t work out the way you’d think it would.

Labeling teams starting with “A” as the strongest team, the thought is that team “D” would play teams “C” and “E”...team “E” would play teams “D” and “F”...and so on. But the problem is that each “end” of the list of teams gets screwed up.

For instance, who would team “A” (Kansas City) play? Obviously teams “B” and “C”, right? Those are the second and third best teams. Team “B” would play teams “A” and “C”. But that leaves team “C” to face teams “A” and “B”, and not “B” and “D”. With “A”, “B”, and “C” already having their two games set, “D” would face teams “E” and “F”, not teams “C” and “E”...and the screwed up pattern continues..,

️

Just create 7 four team brackets based on last years' record. 1-4, 2-3, 1-3, 2-4

"Competitive issues are always important and they always are considered in a way to try to preserve equitable treatment of all 32 clubs," he said, per the NFL Network. "And certainly, our goal will be to have all 32 clubs operating on a consistent basis."

But with uncertainty looming over the possibility of playing games without fans,the MMQB's Albert Breer noted Monday that, "at least a couple teams that are facing the possibility of playing in empty stadiums in the fall would rather do that at home, than play their home games in someone else's city."

(This was in reference to the possibility of CA teams needing to play in non-lockdown states or localities.)

Estimating lossesGames without fans would cost $70 million in gate receipts per team — as a conservative estimate. Count the 10 games (two exhibitions) at a stadium and multiply by $7 million, which several sources indicated would be a fair average across the league. And while you'd save on expenses like event staffing, you'd still lose out on millions in concession sales and parking.

The NFL has long had revenue sharing in place, and the bulk of the money pool comes from television contracts. But TV contracts are not the entire pie, and with those numbers already locked in for this season, the expectation is total revenue takes a big hit.

And even though the NFL has enjoyed all-time revenue highs this century, teams still amazingly see small profit margins. At least that's the case for the Green Bay Packers, whose standing as a publicly owned corporation allows for a peak behind the NFL curtain. Here's a look at their public statement of revenue from the past two years (keep in mind all of the dollar values are in thousands):

(See graph in article)

As the adage goes, you make a lot of money and spend a lot of money. The Packers, who I'm told are at the high-end of local revenue generation among NFL teams, netted an operating profit of about $724,000. Circumstances like Aaron Rodgers's record-breaking contract, deals for a new coaching staff and concussion settlement payments accounted for such a small margin.

Last year's financials show the team may have been getting too fat in the belly. The $724,000 in operating profit from 2019 is a sharp decline from the reported $34 million operating profit the year before. That was down from $65.3 million the year before that, and down even more from $75 million in 2016.

A loss of local revenue in the tens of millions will significantly impact operations for each team in the NFL, and it will especially harm the teams who have been nearing the edge. As teams begin to count the money that won't be coming in this fall, they're focused even more on making sure more doesn't go out the door.

"Way, way, way more energy is being spent on preserving the revenue that we have than replacing what we're going to lose," one team executive says.

Socially-distant fans in stadiums?Last Monday, Dolphins president/CEO Tom Garfinkel announced a plan for an NFL game to take place with socially-distant fans in the Hard Rock Stadium stands. Certain fans would enter at designated times through designated gates, sit spaced out in the stands and exit "much like a church environment." The Dolphins would be able to get about 15,000 fans in their 65,000-seat stadium.

But one NFL team executive indicated to me that other teams weren't pleased that the Dolphins' so proudly unveiled their working plan. The question coming from fans of other teams was, Where's your plan?

The truth is, a plan involving social distance options for all NFL stadiums is 1) not easy to concoct and 2) not really feasible for some stadiums. Even the plan Garfinkel announced begs for more clarity on key issues.

First, though, the advantages for home teams are obvious. You have a semblance of a home crowd and you get a portion of the gate receipts, concessions and parking you'd otherwise lose. You can get stadium workers back to work and make money in the process.

But whoa, Nelly, are there challenges.

Do teams want to take on that liability? Mobile ticketing would be almost necessary, and some teams don't have that in place and certainly can't get that infrastructure ready in time. Venues that are cashless would operate better than those still stuck in the last decade, but good luck having a decent line of people standing 6 feet apart in the Superdome concourses. Even better luck ensuring restrooms are sanitary over the course of three-plus hours. And you'd better hope the fixtures are touchless and motion-activated.

Where would you seat people? That can be figured out with a rather elementary algorithm. There's no real problem asking a computer to figure out how to safely place people 6-or-more feet away from each other in your home stadium. But who sits where is another issue entirely.

Sources agree that season-ticket holders will likely get first dibs on tickets. "No one is more valuable than the PSL (permanent seat license) owners," one executive told me. "[They represent] long-term commitment, buy the bigger ticket and least often default."

If a team has, say, 45,000 season-ticket holders but only 15,000 get to go to one game, you'd likely have to hold a lottery. Your most valued customer would get to go to at least two home regular-season games and possibly more in this scenario. There'd be no single-game tickets to non-season ticket holders -- an understandable function of this -- and it's possible there'd be no allotment for visiting team fans.

But as one source pointed out, the long-time season-ticket holder who makes a mid-six figure salary who has seats on the eighth row may not appreciate sitting in Section 517, Row M, Seat 12.

Ultimately, is it worth it? Sources differ on that answer. But all recognize that in this fight to claw back as many dollars as possible this NFL season, there won't be a one-size-fits-all policy across the league. That may be unfair, but there's money to be made.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Stephen Ross: NFL will definitely play, only question is if we’ll have fans

Dolphins owner Stephen Ross has no doubt that the NFL will have a season this year.

Ross said today on CNBC that the games themselves are not even in question anymore, and the only issue is whether stadiums will be full.

There “definitelywill be a football seasonthis year” and the “real question is will there be fans in the stadium,” Ross said, via Cameron Wolfe of ESPN.

Ross said the Dolphins do expect to have fans in attendance, but that’s not something he can guarantee will be feasible in three months.

The NFL has conducted business all offseason as if the season will start on time. Free agency, the draft and the schedule release all proceeded in a manner that suggests the league thinks it will be ready to go in September. Ross is echoing that, while allowing for the reality that full stadiums will be the hardest thing to pull off.

That’s a significant step forward after a virtual offseason has left teams to communicate by Zoom calls and work out on their own.

There are many hurdles to be cleared before the sight of teams conducting minicamps is a common, with several states yet to open things up in a way that would allow large gatherings of players and coaches. California is a particular concern, with three teams based there, and getting a go-ahead from Governor Gavin Newsom would be a key for the league to signal it’s ready to get back to business.

According to the report, the window for minicamps would be between June 15 and June 27, which is later than normal (teams usually begin a six or seven-week break before training camp in mid-June). It’s unclear how that would impact starting dates for training camp.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That should be OK for Ohio or Texas teams...not so sure for California or New Jersey. Will the league allow some players to report for minis, while others do not?

That's the million-dollar question. League execs have spoken extensively about preserving competitive balance across all teams. In short, if one team isn't able to get on the practice field due to local or state law, no NFL team will be able to. With just coaches/staff, it may not meet the same definition.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Player safety is a sort-of overlooked area. The NFLPA Exec Director has said recently, that "further discussion" will be needed with the league before the union will give the go-ahead to participation in a "normal" training camp environment. That was a week ago, so who knows if anything has changed there.

Link to post

Share on other sites

All you can do right now is make contingency plans. No one knows what things will look like in August.

Hope guys are working out in some way. If not there will be a lot of injuries when things do start up.

A large recurrence of cases was expected in the fall. And, that was BEFORE all of the protests. When looking through the lens that was telling us social distancing is the closest thing to a sure thing to keep Covid from spreading excessively, watching numbers these next couple weeks might be telling.